Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

eia.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 1001 posts

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#101

Post by evilos »

philipkglass wrote: post #39
evilos wrote: post #35

We paid the first-of-a-kind costs, we should reap the Nth-of-a-kind rewards. Replace all the coal capacity with AP1000s.

There's no Federal agency that can decree that sort of policy. Coal generator retirement happens on a state-by-state or even business-by-business basis. Some states are going to cling to coal power past its economically rational lifespan because important parts of state politics are linked to coal businesses. States where coal retires for economic reasons will go for least-cost replacement (a blend of solar, wind, an…

There is potential in the federally owned TVA which has around 35 GW in its portfolio. Also Georgia has a lot of coal and is the state with these new NPPs.

Plus the federal government doesn't need to mandate it. It can simply incentivize these plants to be built like it did with Solar/Wind.

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#102

Post by sgu999 »

Goodonya! Meanwhile we're still waiting for our infamous EPRs over here. [0]

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)

> The first EPR unit to start construction, at Olkiluoto in Finland, originally intended to be commissioned in 2009, started commercial operation in 2023, a delay of fourteen years.[3] The second EPR unit to start construction, at Flamanville in France, is also facing a decade-long delay in its commissioning (from 2013 to 2024).[4] Two units at Hinkley Point in the United Kingdom received final approval in September 2016; the first unit is expected to begin operating in 2027.[5][6]

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#103

Post by [deleted] »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #75
hef19898 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was tried, nuclear reactors on civilian ships, and found to be a stupid idea. Too expensive and no real benefit over ship engines. By the way, tha vast majority of military ships and boats are not nuclear powered.

> was tried, nuclear reactors on civilian ships, and found to be a stupid idea We only did a demo ship, which was combination cargo and passenger. The principal cost was being rejected from ports for their lacking acceptance procedures, a first-mover cost. Nuclear shipping has never been “found to be a stupid idea.” It was simply never explored.

[deleted]

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#104

Post by corethree »

bordercases wrote: post #17
corethree wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't really build anything anymore. The "expertise" has transferred to Asia. Anything we build we'll build worse, slower and more expensive. Except for airplanes that's one of the few things we still do better. My overall point is I highly doubt nuclear powerplants will be built here in any major way. Will it happen in Asia? Far more likely.

According to my sources, Hong Kong has an engineer shortage. They still want the je ne-sais quoi quality of North American trained engineers.

I would say Hong Kong doesn't illustrate the overall story.

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#105

Post by JumpCrisscross »

viraptor wrote: post #95
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> have to overbuild renewables to handle seasonal variation At which point it ceases to be as cheap.

That sounds like a kneejerk response. Got a source for it? It's not like we didn't know about it all the time, yet the large solar systems were built.

> sounds like a kneejerk response. Got a source for it

If you have 120% solar capacity in the summer so you have 100% in the winter, that’s obviously going to be more expensive than just building 100%. This is basic utilisation.

Also, diminishing returns: the most-productive spots for solar will be built out first.

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#106

Post by hackyhacky »

slashdev wrote: post #74
klipklop wrote: post #63

Seems to me the people saying solar and battery only future do not live in areas that can be cloudy for multiple weeks. I didn’t run the math but I’m guessing it’s not feasible to build a battery pack large enough to ride out winter in some areas. The SF Bay Area, sure, but I suspect blackouts will be common in solar+battery only areas. A preferred solution would be a mix of both with nuclear handling disruptions due…

Batteries are not for riding out winter, they're for evening out the daily load. You have to overbuild renewables to handle seasonal variation, as well as make long-distance interconnects. Pumped hydro is also extremely interesting for obvious reasons. Nuclear as it exists today is not cost competitive. But that's mostly an artificial problem caused by regulation. Can we solve that without sacrificing safety? Can we…

If there's any area to not skimp on safety regulations, I'd say nuclear is it. I think the alleged blight of "overregulation" has become a conservative mantra but without much basis in fact.

Or maybe I'm wrong. You seem to know a lot about nuclear regulation. Can you tell us a specific, unnecessary burdensome regulatory rule that you feel is holding back progress?

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#107

Post by konschubert »

slashdev wrote: post #74
klipklop wrote: post #63

Seems to me the people saying solar and battery only future do not live in areas that can be cloudy for multiple weeks. I didn’t run the math but I’m guessing it’s not feasible to build a battery pack large enough to ride out winter in some areas. The SF Bay Area, sure, but I suspect blackouts will be common in solar+battery only areas. A preferred solution would be a mix of both with nuclear handling disruptions due…

Batteries are not for riding out winter, they're for evening out the daily load. You have to overbuild renewables to handle seasonal variation, as well as make long-distance interconnects. Pumped hydro is also extremely interesting for obvious reasons. Nuclear as it exists today is not cost competitive. But that's mostly an artificial problem caused by regulation. Can we solve that without sacrificing safety? Can we…

You can also use hydrogen (or Ammonia) for long term storage. It's one of the few use cases where hydrogen makes sense.

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#108

Post by cool_dude85 »

internetter wrote: post #55
MichaelNolan wrote: post #14

If I was a betting man, I would put money down that Vogtle 4 is the last nuclear reactor that gets built in the US. Solar and batteries are just too cheap for nuclear to compete. The world will be installing a terawatt of solar capacity per year soon. *excluding research or military reactors of course.

One kilogram of uranium-235 (50 cm^3) can theoretically produce about 20 terajoules of energy. One square kilometer of solar panels can theoretically produce the same amount (as 50cm^3 U235) in a day. I'll take this bet. Edit: Tried to edit the edit but somehow deleted the rest of the edit. It was something to the tune of how a big problem with renewables is the fact that peak solar production does not match peak ene…

Nuclear is baseload and is the exact opposite of "instantly fired up". Best tech for that is gas or battery.

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#110

Post by amateuring »

MichaelNolan wrote: post #14

If I was a betting man, I would put money down that Vogtle 4 is the last nuclear reactor that gets built in the US. Solar and batteries are just too cheap for nuclear to compete. The world will be installing a terawatt of solar capacity per year soon. *excluding research or military reactors of course.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN